Rotten To The Core
There has been a longstanding concern about blatant bias at the BBC, not least in matters of climate change. This certainly dates back at least to January 2006, when they held a seminar of “top scientific experts” to advise them on climate change. The BBC fought tooth and nail to conceal the identity of these experts, but it was subsequently discovered that they were not experts at all, but the usual collection of green lobbyists.
Ever since, the BBC’s coverage of global warming has been woefully one sided and at times inaccurate,
This year they have been publishing a monthly feature, Then and Now, purportedly showing how climate has been changing in a warming world.
One article looked at the recent drought in California, while another claimed that the Victoria Falls had dried up. Both implied that climate change was to blame, with the usual weasel words that while one weather event cannot be linked to climate change, “scientists” say that such events are likely to get worse with global warming.
However both stories omitted crucial information, which would have shown such claims to be nonsensical and untruthful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56902340
.
California, for instance, has had droughts in the 20thC every bit as bad as the current one. Moreover the official data clearly shows megadroughts there were much worse for much of the last thousand years or so. In short, California is a land of drought. The modest amount of warming there since the Little Ice Age has altered nothing.
The BBC claims about the Victoria Falls were even more absurd. For a start, the Falls did not run dry; every dry season lake levels drop. As the Zambian side is at a higher elevation, the Falls there dry up, while continuing at the other end. This happens every year, but the BBC deceitfully misled readers by showing a split image comparing Jan 2019 with Dec 2019. In January every year water levels rise sharply, and Jan 2020 was no exception.
It is certainly true that there was a drought in the region in 2019, and water levels were lower than average. But the Zambesi River Authority say that there have been six occasions since 1914 when water levels were lower, the worst being in 1995.
Just as with California, the BBC have picked on a drought, but ignored all of the data showing that they are both natural events, with no evidence that droughts are getting more severe or common.
This sort of misreporting of the Victoria Falls is of extreme concern to Zambia’s tourist industry and local businesses, who are naturally worried that tourists may stop visiting if they think the Falls are no longer there.
Which brings us to the point of the story. I complained to the BBC that both stories were grossly misleading and omitted crucial information.
Complaints to the BBC go through three stages. The first response appears to be written by the office junior, who tries to fob you off with a few bland statements.
If you are unhappy, you can resubmit the complaint, which usually gets the same response, though dressed up in sciency sounding language.
Finally you can appeal to the Executive Complaints Unit.
As is usually the case, I effectively received the same reply at all three stages, viz:
- There was a drought
- “Scientists say” climate change is making droughts worse
None of the replies actually addressed my complaint, that the actual data shows droughts are not unusual or getting worse at either location.
The real issue here of course is that the BBC Complaints Dept is all in house, even the ECU. In effect the BBC is marking its own homework.
In theory it is possible to appeal to OFCOM. In practice however they have no obligation to investigate, and would only consider doing so for substantive cases.
Clearly BBC bias will never be addressed until they are subject to a fully independent process, just as the press is.
In the meantime, if Tim Davie is serious about cleaning the stables, he should start by taking his axe to the bloated, fourteen strong Environmental Dept, which is now clearly out of control.
Instances of bias and misinformation, such as these two, are now commonplace in their output, and they seem to believe that they don’t even have to pay lip service to editorial guidelines anymore.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=9xZdbJa7&id=3B276A66B2A56B7CE1494BCD5B4E1D06F8B64E0C&thid=OIP.9xZdbJa7oJX8rPV6d_6PSQAAAA&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2ffundesigns.online%2fimage%2fcache%2fcatalog%2fB07T4NJBGP%2fIs-it-true-or-did-you-hear-it-on-the-BBC-Fridge-Magnet-with-in-built-stand-B07T4-250×260.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.f7165d6c96bba095fcacf57a77fe8f49%3frik%3dDE62%252bAYdTlvNSw%26pid%3dImgRaw&exph=260&expw=250&q=is+that+true+or+did+you+hear+it+on+the+bbc&simid=608014614432472091&FORM=IRPRST&ck=2CA19D55A3BE0B6E616BE079189A30F2&selectedIndex=1
Hi Paul. I remain in awe of your indefatigtability in attempting to both highlight the inexactitudes in the new ‘science’ of climate and earth studies and also your assiduously submitting complaints about bias. The level of bias that you have unearthed in British media and the continuation of that bias, despite your and Christopher Booker et al deconstruction of such blatant and, very often, false bias now points to conspiratorial fraud. No matter how often I attempt to babystep believers in climate hype in Dublin, to even consider the effect the Little Ice Age has had – in that we have merely been recovering some of the lost heat over that circa four hundred year pause – I quickly get glazed eyes and i more or less immediate standard riposte: “but what’s in it for all the scientists; why would they make it up?”. We are now essentially trapped in a media-enabled modern day version of Tulipmania. Keep up the great work. Best wishes. Eoin
Sadly not – http://bbcinstitutionalbias.blogspot.com/
Eoin, with you in spirit – keep on “keeping on”
What’s in it for the scientists? Jobs. And for those higher up, prestige and gongs.
Would the BBC’ s Charter breaking alone justify my refusal, as an oldie, to pay the BBC’s extorted tax money?
…even if they had not played very ordinary presenters obscenely?
It’s impossible to counter the “extreme events anywhere must be due to climate change” argument. It’s a human bias to magnify current experiences into significant overall changes, just as it is exciting to imagine that we live in dramatic and meaningful times where actions we take can have profound consequences. Rather than the better approximation to the truth, that we live in a comfortable period of history where we have far less disease and famine than ever before, and are largely rich enough to have a surplus of wealth so we can help out those who are in difficulty.
Consider how many potential opportunities there are for the BBC, like-minded media outlets, those it benefits, and self-important alarmists, to pick on individual weather occurrences and inflate them as “proof” of humans’ impact on the climate:
There are many countries (50+?) that have around 100 years of reliable weather data; each of those countries has from one to many different climatic zones perhaps averaging five, they all have, typically, four different seasons. That’s 100,000 different sets of data, each of which would have had a record-breaking extreme of some kind in one of those seasons over that period so, typically, a thousand in any one year to point to as evidence that we live in unusual and extreme times when, in fact, it’s at the equable end of absolutely normal!
Picture this scenario: you have lived in the American mid-west, as a family, for 100 years, and your family history tells you there have been no tornados where you reside in all that period. Then one comes along and destroys your crops and buildings. You re-build, then it happens again. For you, the “climate” has changed. You move somewhere else and a local tells you that they had regular tornados until ten years ago but then they cleared up. For him, the “climate” has changed. Except, of course, it hasn’t, it’s just how the data has been selected and blown up into a general trend.
Terry… well stated. Going back through history generations of humans have always had the feeling that the climate might be changing. Some examples:
Monthly Weather Review, December 1910
CHANGES IN THE EARTH’S CLIMATE.
“While there is abundant evidence in the records of geology to prove that great changes took place in the earth’s climate during prehistoric ages, the world’s leading meteorological authorities generally concur in the opinion that there have been no appreciable climatic changes during the period covered by authentic history. The popular idea that the climate is changing is evidently an old one, and is caused by the temperature and precipitation conditions remaining for comparatively short periods below or above the normal conditions; such changes should be referred to as oscillations in the weather rather than as changes in the climate.”
Clarence E. Koeppe Monthly Weather Review, December 1934
“The average person remembers the unusual weather which he has experienced, and forgets the normal course; and of this unusual weather, he is likely to remember only that which occurred most recently or which may have made some deep impression upon him at the time. If, as a child, he had an unusual experience of wading through snow up to his hips on Thanksgiving Day, that fact clings to his mind for years; and because no other Thanksgiving since then may have had snow that deep, he knows that the weather isn’t what it used to be, notwithstanding that snow, hip deep, to a child might not need to be much more than a foot deep. It may seem, therefore, that the subject here treated would only be aggravating a situation already bad. That can hardly be the case, however, because probably no reader of this article has experienced as much as 5 percent of the phenomena or conditions which are portrayed. To the student of human climatology a knowledge of extremes of weather is quite as significant as a knowledge of averages, since the extremes cause so much property loss and human suffering.”
Well stated.
The Maricopa County investigation in the US into voting fraud is liable to put an end to all this nonsense.
If, as it seems, the report returns the staggering lengths Democrats went to in order to defraud the American public, every county in every swing state will demand its own audit.
The Democrat party will be finished for generations, if they even survive at all.
The political fallout will hit the UK and Europe like a tsunami. Identity, woke and sexual politics will be finished. Activist groups like BLM/antifa/XR will haemorrhage support and wither on the vine.
As vulnerable people begin to die or remain permanently compromised by the poisonous gene altering drugs forced onto the worlds public as a ‘vaccine’, the damage, lies and incompetence of politicians and the medical community will be revealed.
The media will be exposed in the starkest terms and I expect the BBC will see it’s funding source shrink as people stop paying their TV Licences en mass. The Guardian will also finally die it’s long overdue death.
The climate change scam will be exposed as people rapidly move to honest online media, and the MSM will either be forced to change it’s tune on global issues or simply die the death it deserves.
The Davos clique will flee into hiding. Gates and Soros will be hunted men and Prince Charles will never see a crown far less wear one.
The UN and it’s agencies like the WHO and the IPCC will be discredited and are likely not to exist in their current form, if at all.
The whole process will mean a decade of hardship for many as Klaus Schwab’s ”Great Reset’ manifests itself, just not in the way he planned.
In your dreams!
What do you imagine will happen if Maricopa County election results are found to be as fraudulent as they already seem?
Nothing?
Do you not believe the American people will demand forensic audits everywhere else?
Do you imagine the MSM can maintain their partisan support for an illegal and unconstitutional election without destroying themselves?
Don’t you imagine that honest Democrat voters (of which there are many) will be left politically homeless, and disgusted their own political representatives acted in such a reprehensible manner? Would you vote for your political party following overt cheating in an election?
Don’t you imagine that everything else the Democrats have supported over the last few years, like the green new deal, will now be considered just another lie? They may be found to have cheated the American people to just as deceptively push their own agenda, and not that of the American people.
Remember Trump told them climate change hysteria was nonsense and took America out of the Paris accord. Don’t you think they might now believe him?
The entire country has watched Biden use executive orders to destroy jobs, increase prices and set the country on a course to staggering inflation whilst throwing money at climate change.
Do you somehow believe the American people don’t perceive wielding executive orders a form of political tyranny.
The pages of the alternative media and social media are awash with disgruntled Americans. Indeed, the pages of Facebook and Twitter aren’t awash with it because they are censored, and people know it.
I have just shut down my Facebook account after many years because educating a particularly stupid climate change advocate was considered Bullying by 18 year old, left wing, spotty computer nerds who don’t know their a*se from their elbow, and banned me for 7 days. I was kicked off Twitter about a year ago for the same reason.
I’m not alone.
If this fairly logical process follows through, how do you imagine rejection of climate change, amongst everything else, will affect the rest of the western world?
With the new green deal dead, how can Boris possibly hope to sell the British public climate change spending under his green industrial revolution banner? And how credible will Princess Nut Nut be when the MSM turn on her to curry favour with an increasingly sceptical public?
And just what justification will there be left in America or the UK for divisive identity politics when it’s associated with the big lie. After all, that’s the only battle ground the labour party felt remained that they could control. Where do they go from here?
Of course Trump has been out of the frontline now since the election happened, and if election fraud is proven all he’ll say is “told ya so”. And not one person on the planet could disagree with him.
The only job left to be done will be clearing out the deep state, a job largely accomplished if fraud is demonstrated. That won’t require Trump any longer, he might consider his job done, and there are a number of Republican candidates who have demonstrated their courage and principles by standing up to be counted amongst all this.
David Redfern
100% agree that that is what should happen.
Plus a huge list of other clownish nonsense and evil fraud that should be firmly nipped in the bud.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath.
As the great Mark Steyn points out, when the (vaguely) right wins an election, they take office. When the left wins (or much more likely cheats and steals a win), they take control.
Yes, the theory is fine — most of it. But it ain’t gonna happen! And once we start down the road of “gene-altering drugs” and the “Davos clique” I’m afraid we’re danger of wandering into “Giant Lizard” territory!
A simple solution to counting fraud would be for each party to be able to nominate one county for a forensic audit after the event, with penalties for wrongdoing.
Reblogged this on delboydave and commented:
Paul Homewood yet again highlights the inaccuracy and bias of the BBC’s reporting on the alleged ‘climate emergency’ as they use false and cherry picked data to advance their narrative. The BBC is no longer a reliable or trustworthy news provider or broadcaster.
‘No longer’ It hasn’t been for decades. It amused me to read in the Mail that they had decided that Thikipedia had a left-wing bias. Again, it has had for years.
I think it is about time the BBC were kicked into touch. Why should we pay to be indoctrinated with their Marxist agenda. Let them turn to advertising to recoup the money and get rid of their over entitled ”expert pundits” Independent media needs to mount an assault on their dogma and give us alternative views. Other channels have to compete with advertising but the BBC is a public funded monopoly and as such should represent all views not just their twisted undemocratic ones. Well done Paul for keeping alive the truth and exposing their lies. How about a national referendum? Just the one question Should the public fund this disgraceful organisation YES/NO.
Keith
Bias is mandated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. One of the reasons I retired from the newsroom early after 32 years in 2018. It had long been impossible to get the truth ON the air, but was now getting increasingly harder to keep absurd propaganda OFF the air. My career would never have survived the cult of covid anyway.
Classic BBC lying by omission. They do do it so often its become standard operating procedure.
We don’t hear Chinese, Indian or Russian complaints about the weather. Apart from the Zambesi, the whole of Africa seems quite sanguine about the situation, and then there is the whole of South America. Some have reason, perhaps, not to report, others have nothing to report. All the weather events seem restricted to areas that have high pressure media and reporters with lots of front.
That we live in a age where commentators attempt to set themselves up as celebrities is a dangerous trend. Is their nothing that such individuals will stop at to impress their sagacity and prescience upon us? On the back of this ‘one hand clapping’ reportage. our government is trying to forge a new economy on our acceptance and advanced knowledge in Global Warming expertise. I fear that this one trick pony will only be a spectacle for so long and when it stumbles we will all go down.
There seems to be wholesale interference in news, media representation and structural constituents of our society. Climate, ethnicity and feminism have all taken root forcefully and only one body could demand the awful conformity.
Our politicians continue to use ever stricter laws to protect and cover themselves from scrutiny.
Without proper scrutiny and transparency they cannot be trusted.
Legislation is being passed in the name of National Security.
This is an extremely elastic concept. Enabling the Government to hide many serious issues from the public.
To give an example:-
The way government departments can use the notion of national security as a weapon was exposed during the litigation into the wrongful imprisonment of sub-postmasters who were warned they were subject to the Official Secrets Act.
This elastic concept can stretch to all areas of our lives.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-06-15-priti-patels-new-threat-to-british-journalists/
The idea of the BBC marking its own homework is hillarious. ‘could do better’ springs to mind.
In reality a cloak of falsehood, deception and duplicity surround the BBC.
Information is power. While viewers/readers want a media which reflects the concerns of ordinary people rather than attempting to lead opinion, sensatation alise or dumb down.
Governments don’t want journalists penetrating this cloak.
To ensure the duplication of the state desired narrative is presented by all outlets simultaneously training is necessary.
The European Journalism Centre sponsor media related projects educate journalists. They will also publish study books, provide training spaces and press agencies.
In all of this the BBC has little need for scientists. When they do, a ‘safe pair of hands’, will be selected.
Familar, trusted names and faces that are rarely doubted.
The section on Mainstream Media is approx two thirds of the way down.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/bill-sardi/who-runs-the-world-blackrock-and-vanguard/